

Salaries of Members of Congress 


SPEECH 


OF 



HON. JEREMIAH M. WILSON, 


OF INDIANA 


In the House of Eepresenta"^'"’'^^^ 



Tuesday, December 9, 1873. , 



Tlie Hoiise having under consideration the hill in relation to salaries— 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana, said: 

Mr. Speaker, the subject now under consideration is one wliicli lias 
attracted much public attention. The action of the Forty-second 
Congress, in passing the act by which the salaries of Senators and 
Representatives were increased, which it is now proposed to repeal, 
and especially that feature of it whereby the increased pay was 
made to ddte from the beginning of the Congress, has met with the 
fiercest denunciation. Not only those who voted for it, but those who 
voted against it, yet received its benefits, have been stigmatized as 
tliieves and robbers. 

It matters not how many years of faithful service had been devoted 
to the country, nor how exalted a character for integrity had been 
buildedup; this one act has been deemed an unpardonable sin, and 
treated as an unmitigated criminality. While indulging in this whole¬ 
sale denunciation, no one stopped to consider the circumstances 
under which any member happened to be placed, and which to him, 
and to any reasonable man, might seem to make it his duty to vote 
for the measure; no difference of opinion was permitted as to its jus¬ 
tice ; no appeal to reason would be listened to. My distinguished 
friend from Ohio, [Mr. Garfield,] who struggled against it until, in 
a conference report which he had resisted to the last, it was brought 
before the House attached to one of the most important appropria¬ 
tion bills, and then, as all of us who are familiar with the facts must 
confidently believe, (and it is but justice to him to say so here,) voted 
for it in the conscientious discharge of his duty to the country, has 
fared no better than any one else. 


I do not doubt that this unstinted abuse has been indulged in by 
many honest, conscientious men, who, in my judgment, came to hasty 
conclusions; and certainly by many who thought they could see in it 
their opportunity for perferment, hoping for official honors upon some 
demerit of others, rather than upon any merit of their own. 

Mr. Speaker, I may be mistaken, but I have thought that I could 
see in what has transpired here since this question came before the 



•So.,. : t - »• t f '■ 


' / 



; 







House a disposition upon the j>art of some gentlemen to seek to 
gain popularity for tliemselves by trying to cast rex)roach upon their 
fellow-members. 

Now, sir, it is not my purpose to argue against the repeal of that 
act, nor that it did not fix the salaries too high, but to show that 
there is nothing in it that is immoral or dishonest; that a man might 
vote for it, or receive its benefits, and still be the peer in integrity 
and conscience of the very best of all the multitude of his detractors. 
The limit fixed to this debate will not permit me to enter into an 
elaborate consideration of this subject in its various aspects, and I 
must necessarily treat it briefly. As the Constitution now is, the 
power is granted to each Congress to fix its own compensation. This 
power was granted for the reason that it was not deemed wise to 
allow one Congress to fix the compensation of its successor; it was 
recognized as a delicate duty for members to fix their om'ii salaries, 
but after weighing all the arguments pro and coo, it was deemed best 
that it should be so. A great many newspaper articles have been 
})ublished, and speeches made, in which it has been assumed that 
when a Senator or a Memljer of Congress is elected it is a contract 
to serve during the period for which he was elected for the conipeii- 
sation provided for at the time of his election. But, sir, uotliing is 
plainer than that the assumption is without foundation. On the 
contrary, as before remarked, for reasons which the framers of the 
Constitution regarded as outweighing those that were urged against 
it, it was provided that each Congress miglit judge of its own com- 
j)eusation. Such is not only the plain letter of the Constitution, but 
there is history which shows that so the people themselves desired it 
to l>e, to which I desire briefly to call attention. 

On the 27th of June, 1788, when the State of Virginia ratified the 
Constitution, the convention of that State ])ropo8ed numerous amend¬ 
ments to ])e submitted to Congress for action, among which is one in 
the following language : 

18. That lavrs avscertaininff the compensation of Senators and Kepresentatives 
for their .services be postponed in their operation until after the election of Kepre- 
sentativea, immediately succeeding the passing thereof. 

That convention instructed the Senators and Reprevsentatives from 
Virginia to insist upon this amendment with the others. 

On the 8th of June, 1789, Mr. Madison, in the House of Representa¬ 
tives, oflered this amendment in the following words : 

That in article 1, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the first sentence these 
words, to wit: “ But no law var^-iug the compensation last ascertained shall operate 
before the next ensuing election of Rei)reBentatives.” 

After this and other amendments had pas.sed through the hands of 
a committee, it came before the House in the following form: 

Article 1, section 6, between the words “United States," and “.shall in all cases," 
strike out “they" andinsert “but no lawvarj-iug the compemsation shall take effect 
until an election of Kepresentatives shall have intervened." 

In the discussion which ensued, Mr. Sedgwick, of Massachmsetts, 
said: “Much inconvenience and but very little good would result from, 
this amendment. It might serve as a tool for designing men ; they 
might reduce the wages very low, much lower than it was possible 
for any gentleman to serve without injury to his private afl'airs, in 
order to secure popularity at home, provided a diminution of })ay wa.s 
looked upon as a desirabie thing. It might also be done in order to 
prevent men of shining and distingui.shed abilities, but of indigent 
circumstances, from rendering their fellow-citizens those services they 



ai'e well able to perform, and render a seat in this House less eligible 
than it ought to be.’’ 

Mr. Viniug said be thought every future Legislature would feel a 
degree of gratitude to the preceding one which had performed so dis¬ 
agreeable a task for them. The committee who had made this a part 
of their report had been guided by a single reason, but which appeared 
to them a sufficient one.^ There was, to say the least of it, a disagree¬ 
able sensation occasionetl by leaving it in the breast of any man to 
set a value on his own work. It is true it is unavoidable in the pres¬ 
ent House, but it might, and ought to be, avoided in future ; he there¬ 
fore hoped it would obtain without any difficulty. 

Mr. Gerry said he would bo in favor of this clause if they could 
find means to secure an adequate representation ; but he apprehended 
that it would be considerably endangered; he should, therefore, be 
against it.” 

Mr. Madison said he ^Hhought the representation would be as well 
secured under this clause as it would be if it was omitted; and as it 
was desired by a great number of the people of America he would 
consent to it, though he was not convinced it was absolutely neces¬ 
sary.” 

Mr. Sedgwick ‘^remarked once more that the proposition had two 
aspects, which made it disagreeable to him; the one was to render a 
man popular with his constituents, the other to render the place in¬ 
eligible to his competitor.” 

This is the substance of the debate on this proposed amendment. 
The House passed it, as did also the Senate, and it was sent to the 
States for ratification. By that act the First Congress virtually said 
to the people of the several States : “ You have, by the Constitution, 
authorized each Congress to fix its own compensation. It is a delicate 
duty to perform, and we propose that you so amend your Constitution 
that when the compensation is fixed it shall not apply to the Congress 
fixing it.” But the States rejected this proposed amendment. They 
said by that refusal, “We will leave to each Congress the right to fix 
its own salary.” 

With this approval of the Constitution as originally framed, and 
disapproval of the i)roposed amendment, five different Congresses 
have made changes in congressional salaries, each time increasing 
the amount and each time fixing its own salary, i. e., dating the in¬ 
crease back to the beginning of the Congress, as the Constitution au¬ 
thorized, and as tht& people had, by the refusal to amend, sanctioned. 
Of those who participated in said legislation and its benefits the 
records disclose the names of many who were illustrious for their 
wisdom and integrity. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I wish to ask the gentleman from 
Indiana whether he has before him the votes of the States when they 
acted on that proposition. 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. I have not. 

Mr. GARFIELD. I have. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I hope the gentleman will give 
the statement to the House. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Eliot’s Debates contain the statement that the 
vote was as follows: New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, 
and New Jersey voted nay on the direct proposition for that amend¬ 
ment. Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, North Carolina, Rhode 
Island, and Virginia voted yea. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Georgia, 
and Kentucky declined to act upon the subject altogether. Therefore, 
eight States, either by direct vote, rejecting or refusing to act, nega¬ 
tived the proposition. Six states voted for it. 


4 


Mr. WILSON, of Indiaua. It was not ratified; it was rejected, and 
the people have refused to accede to adopt any such amendment to 
the Constitution, 

Now, Mr. Speaker, when iuternipted, I was calling the attention of 
the House to the fact that, since this refusal on the part of the people 
to make this amendment to the Constitution, five Congresses have 
increased the salaries, and each time dated t\ie increase back to the 
beginning of the Congress, or, in other words, have embodied in the 
law this featui'e, which the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Lawrence,] 
a short while ago, so earnestly objected to as “back pay." 

In the Fourteenth Congress such men as John McLean, of Ohio,Daniel 
AVebster, John C. Calhoun, John Randolph, and others of like char¬ 
acter, voted for such a bill, and all the members of that Congress took 
the benefit. Among the latter were such men as Lowndes, Forsyth, 
Philip Barbour, Henry St. George Tucker, Nathaniel Macon, and Rufus 
King. President Grant has been denounced for signing the bill of 
March last. James Monroe, then President, signed the bill which I 
have just been referring to. 

Again, in August, 1856, the Thirty-fourth Congress passed an act in¬ 
creasing compensation, dating it back to the beginning of the Congress, 
a period of seventeen months, whereby each Senator and Member 
received for that past seventeen months, is wdthout cutting off per¬ 
quisites, about $2,400, in addition to what had already been paid him 
under the prior law; in other words, about $2,400 of what is now stig¬ 
matized as “back pay." In the Senate were such men as Lewis Cass, 
Stephen A. Douglas, B. F. Wade, John M. Clayton, George E. Pugh, 
Samuel Houston, AVilliam H. Seward, Hamilton Fish, Henry Wilson, 
Charles Sumner, Jacob Collamer, JohnP. Hale, William Pitt Fessen¬ 
den, and Hannibal Hamlin. In the House were, among others, John 
Sherman, Francis E. Siiinner, Henry Winter Davis, John Scott Harri¬ 
son, Samuel Galloway, Benjamin Stanton, Joshua R. Giddiugs, John 
Covode, Galusha A.Grow,Wh8hburneof Maine, Washburne of Illinois, 
AVashburn of AA'isconsin, AA’^illiam H. English, George P. Dunn, Wil¬ 
liam Cumback, David P. Halloway, Lucian Barbour, Harvey D. Scott, 
Schuyler Colfax, John AA^. Pettit of Indiana. None of the gentlemen 
in that Congress failed to take the benefits of this act. 

Again in 1866, on the 28th of July, sixteen months after the Thirty- 
ninth Congress began, a like bill was passed increasing the salary 
$2,000 per annum, and making it date from the beginning* of the Con¬ 
gress, and cutting off no iierquisites whatever. 

Among those voting for it in the House I find General Schenck, of 
Ohio, now our minister resident near the Court of Saint James, Mr. 
Kerr, of the State I now in part represent, my colleague on the other 
side of the House, [Mr. Niblack, ] and many others. There were others 
of equal character for integrity who voted against it, among whom I 
find the names of Mr. Boutwell, of Massachusetts, AA^'illiam Law¬ 
rence, of Ohio,''now a member of this House, Mr. Kasson, now a mem¬ 
ber fiom Iowa, Mr. Garfield, now chahman of the Committee on Ap¬ 
propriations, and my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. I also find that many did not vote, among whom 1 
find the distinguished Speaker of this House; the present distinguished 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, three AAbshburns, and 
my predecessor, Mr. Julian. But all, whether voting for or against, 
or not voting at all, took the benefits of the increase—^the “ back pay." 
AVhen the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Lawrence] declined to yield to 
me a few minutes ago for further questhms, after he had answered 
that lie condemned this act both because of the feature of back pay 


o 


and becaii&e it was too mnt»li in amount, and after he had answered 
that in 1866 he took about $3,000 of back pay, I desired to ask him 
further if the principle was wrong last March, whether it was any the 
less wrong in 1866, and whether he has yet covered the portion he re-, 
ceived into the Treasury as conscience money. He can answer now if 
he desires to do so. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I can answer that question. 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. I desire that the gentleman should 
answer the question, but I hope it will not come out of my time. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. From the 4th of March to the 2d of December 
I collected my pay from the Treasury at the rate fixed by the old law. 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. I am talking about 1866. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I collected the whole amount of the salary of 
1873 as fixed by the new law, and on the 2d of December paid into 
the Treasury the difference in amount between the old and new law. 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. When ? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. On the 2d of December. 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. This present December ? I am trying 
to get the gentleman to answer what he did with what he got in 1866. 
Has he covered that into the Treasury ? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. In 1866, as the gentleman has said, every mem¬ 
ber* of that Congress drew the pay fixed by the act of 1866,"except 
one member, a gentleman from West Virginia. In what I said I con¬ 
demned this salary act of March 3, 1873, because its back pay in¬ 
creased the pay, and because of the amount of pay. The back pay, 
like the front pay, is to be condemned, because it is all too much. 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. O, yes; the gentleman from Ohio only 
condemns it now because it is too much. That is the essence of the 
whole matter, as I will show presently. 

But the gentleman said a little while ago, when I interrogated him 
when he was addi-essing the House, that he condemned it because it 
was back pay. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Because it was back pay—too much in amount. 
[Great laughter.] 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. I wish to' ask the gentleman one ques¬ 
tion. 

Mr. NIBLACK. Will my colleague [Mr. Wilsox] yield to me a 
moment f , 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. My time is fast passing away. 

Mr. NIBLACK. I merely wish to say that in 1866 there was one 
member of this House who declined to take the back pay allowed 
him—Mr. Hubbard, of West Virginia. 

Mr. DAWES. I understand my Mend from Ohio to say that he was 
opposed to this back pay because it was too much. I want that he 
shall tell us how much back pay he would go for? [Great laughter.] 

Mr. LAWRENCE rose. 

Mr. DAWES. I desire to ask the gentleman one question more, 
and he can answer all together. He says in the Congress of 1866 
every member took the back pay, and that is the reason he took it. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I said no such thing. 

Mr. DAWES. The gentleman gave that as his excuse, and now he 
turns round and says that the i)eople condemn this, and that is the 
reason he thinks it to be so bad. He goes with the multitude, what¬ 
ever way the multitude goes. [Laughter] 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Now, I hope the gentleman from Indiana will 
allow me to reply to the question of the gentleman from Massachu¬ 
setts. 


The SPEAKER. The time of the geBtIcmaii fiom Indiana [Mr. 
Wii«ONj'ha-s expired. 

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move that the time of the gen¬ 
tleman from Indiana be extended ten minutes. 

Mr. SCOFIELD. I ask the floor. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania on the right 
of the Chair [Mr. Towx 8END] wa.s about to be recognized. But if 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, tvho is a member of the commit¬ 
tee, insists upon his right, the Chair vill feel called upon to recog¬ 
nize him. 

Mr. SCOFIELD. I do not desire to interfere with my colleague. 
If I were recognized I would yield to the gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. TOWNSEND. I yield live minutes to the gentleman from. In¬ 
diana, [Mr. Wilson.] 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Now I hope the gentleman from Indiana, having 
had his time extended, will allow me to answer the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, [Mr. Dawes.] 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. I cannot yield, because iny time will 
very soon expire. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Oh, let me answer the gentleman from Massa¬ 
chusetts. [ Laughter. ] 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. The House will give you time to an¬ 
swer. 

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I call the gentleman from Indiana to 
order. In violation of the Constitution of the United States he is 
inflicting on the gentleman from Ohio “ cruel and unusual ininish- 
ment.” [Laughter.] 

Mr. WILSON, of Indiana. After this long interruption, I resume 
what I was saying about the Congress of 18(56. There were some veiy 
distinguished gentlemen in the Senate in that Congress, among whom 
1 find, from my own State, Henry S. Lane, who spoke in its favor; 
^Thomas A. Hendiick's, who sat in the chair while the matter was be¬ 
ing discussed ; the present Vice-President, iSIr. Fessenden, Mr. Sum¬ 
ner, and others whom I need not name; but none of them failed to 
take the benefits. Some of them voted for back pay, and they all 
took back pay, as it is called. 

I think 1 have shown that the Constitution was purposely framed 
so as to allow each Congvess to fix its own salary, and tliat, a'cting 
within its express constitutional power, the Forty-second Congress, in 
passing the act to which I have referred, has followed an unbroken 
line of precedents, and has trodden in the footstejis of many illustri¬ 
ous predecessors. 

Having the right to fix its own compensation, it is of course wholly 
immaterial on what day of the Congress it is done. The merit or de¬ 
merit does not in any wmy depend upon whether it is done on the first 
or the last or any intervening day. It might be done on the first day, 
and then it would all be “ front pay,” to use the language of some of 
the newspapers; but the eftect upon the Treasury would be precisely 
the same as if fixed upon the last day. The merit or demerit, the 
good or bad qualities of the act, depends, therefore, not on the time in 
the session when it is done, but altogether u])on the amount. If the 
amount fixed would have been right if it had been fixed at the begin¬ 
ning of the Congress, it is equally right if fixed at any later day inAhe 
Congress to date from the beginning. Upon this question of amount 
it is but natural that there should be a diversity of opinion, and tliat 
difference may exist between honest men. 

One may think that the honors of the place are entirely ade- 


< 

qxiate to induce _meu of the requisite character and ability to accept 
and faithfully dischar^’e the duties of the place, regardless of salary, 
and doubtless this is true ; while there are others equally honest who 
believe that the man who devotes his time, abilities, and experience 
to the faithful service of the country should have a salary reasonably 
in excess of his reasonable expenses—that it is neither fair nor just to 
take advantage of the fact that the place is desirable for its honors, 
and thereby secure the services of competent men for an inadequate 
salary. A man may entertain such an opinion and act upon it, and 
be neither a robber nor a thief. Such a man need not be seriously 
apprehensive that he will, in the opinions of just men, sulfer when 
brought in comparison with those w'ho think the same way but have 
not the moral courage to do what they believe to be right, and espe¬ 
cially with the debauched slanderer and political charlatan who 
exhausts himself in denouncing what has been done as legalized rob¬ 
bery. 

I shall not argue the question whether or not the action of the For¬ 
ty-second Congress was ill-timed or indiscreet, although it would pos¬ 
sibly not be difficult to convince a thinking man that it is never ill- 
timed nor indiscreet to do what is right; but this would involve the 
single question, and it is the only question involved, as the gentle¬ 
man from Ohio [Mr. Lawrence] now admits, whether or not the 
amount fixed by that Congress was in excess of a fair compensation. 
Those who had experience here would dift'er in regard to it, and those 
who have had no opportunity to know to what expenses Senators and 
Members are subjected are not in a good condition to form a correct 
opinion. 

It is sufficient for us to know that the people, whether wisely or 
unwisely, are unwilling to pay the amount fixed by that Congress. 
We cannot now argue that they are wrong. They have a right to dic¬ 
tate what they will pay. They have a right to demand that it shall 
be repealed. They have made that demand, and we are now about to 
ivccode to it. When repealed we must once more fix salaries; and that, 
also, we are about to do. Whatever we may do will be criticised; 
but we must do something, and perhaps the best guide to us in dis¬ 
posing of the matter is the law as it was before, and I ttust that the 
House will idace the bill upon that basis. 

o 




» 


6 






0 028 001 883 1J 



• 0 ^ . r^^ 

‘ -I 

• A.. 

.'•v 


r 







/ 










